Watch Video

Male victims of domestic violence say there is not enough support and nowhere for them to go.
A male victim, who did not want to be named, has told ONE News he has been viciously assaulted a number of times. He said while the problem of violence against women has been widely discussed, the other side of the story is not being discussed.
"I've been set fire to. I've been forced to sit on a bed until I've wet the bed," he said.
"The night she set fire to me the police came around and in some ways they were adamant that I was the one perpetrating it."
The victim said there was no one to ring for help. He said other men are being abused as well, and it is time New Zealand faces up to the problem.
"Keeping quiet about it isn't going to make it go away," he said.
Rob Surtees and Brad Martin, from Stopping Violence Services in Wairarapa, say violence against men is a significant problem.
"We mainly deal with men who are violent towards women and children, but there is a big need for men to receive some help around the violence they are receiving as well," said Surtees.

They tried to set up a refuge centre for males in their community - but could not get the funding.
"I believe if we did have a place it would get used and that would benefit the whole community. We have a lot of older men and younger men who need a place to just help sort things out," said Martin.
Help centres have been set up in Gisborne and Auckland to help male victims of domestic violence, however nothing is yet available in Wellington, and there are calls for more help to be made available nationwide.

Monday, February 27, 2012

Who Helps the Exonerated Men of Texas?by MICHAEL HALLFEB 24 2012, 8:22 AM

A lot of men from Dallas County have been exonerated—27 at the latest count—and James Waller is one of the more memorable. He was convicted of the 1983 rape of a twelve-year-old boy—mostly on the word of the boy—and given thirty years for the crime. When DNA tests became available a few years later, he asked for one but didn’t get it. He kept asking, even after he was paroled in 1993, because he was considered a sex offender and couldn’t get a job or even go to parks when children were present. He finally got a test in 2001, but it was inconclusive. A second one in 2007 finally pardoned him, 24 years after he was sent away.

When TEXAS MONTHLY did a photo shoot of DNA exonerees back in 2008, Waller was one of the clear leaders. He had known a few of the men in prison, and he had gone out of his way to contact some of the others after they got out, knowing how hard it was to go from wrongly-convicted-man to free-man. He would even appear at hearings when a new exoneree was getting out, to talk with him, offer advice, let him know he could call him for help. Waller is tall and quietly charismatic and speaks in a deep, country accent. In a room full of men with hard-luck life stories, his stood out. For example, two days before that hearing to determine if he should get a second DNA test, his wife Doris, who was eight months pregnant, died in a car wreck.

Waller soldiered on, refusing to let his troubles destroy him or his spirit. In our interview in 2008, he memorably said, “God didn’t forget about me. That’s the main thing. There were times where I forgot about him, but he never forgot about me. And that’s why I’m still here. But I’m not gonna live in Texas no more. I already have my house up for sale. I’m going to move back to Louisiana.”

Two years later, he sold his house in Dallas and moved back to his hometown of Haynesville, a small town twenty miles northeast of Shreveport, near the Arkansas border. But he refused to leave behind the men whose cause he shared. He recently started a nonprofit called Exonerated Brothers of Texas, along with fellow exonerees Billy Smith (vice-president), James Giles (co-treasurer), Johnnie Lindsey (co-treasurer), and Thomas McGowan (secretary). The men had all become friends after they got out, getting together to talk about their challenges and struggles, sharing how they were coping with their families and their freedom.

Waller wants to harness this energy for the ones he knows will follow in their footsteps. “When I got out,” says Waller, who is 55, “there was no help, no support. Nobody listened. I was alone. I didn’t know any exonerees.”

That won’t happen anymore. Exonerated Brothers of Texas will focus on things like counseling, family services, and job and vocational training. Mostly, though, its goal is to let the exoneree know he’s not alone. “Our purpose is to be there when they walk out and then later for support and counseling—because they’re going to need some counseling. When you’ve been gone from society for a long time, things are different. We’re trying to help guys getting out and trying to help guys who don’t want to go back.”

In fact, Waller and nine other Texas exonerees were in a Dallas courtroom Wednesday when Richard Miles was exonerated after fourteen years. They all hugged their new comrade and welcomed him to the brotherhood.

Waller sees his long, hard journey as having a larger purpose. “We were exonerated for a reason, besides to just sit around and do nothing. We shouldn’t just sit back and not do something for somebody else. If I can help another person, I will: help people in prison, help people who get out. Help them connect to a person.”

Exonerated Brothers of Texas will launch a website next month and plans on holding a fundraiser in July in Dallas.

A father has been arrested, strip-searched and hauled in forquestioning – all because his four-year-old daughter drew a picture of a gun at school.

“I’m picking up my kids and then, next thing you know, I’m locked up,” Jessie Sansone, 26, told the Waterloo Region Record in Canada. “I was in shock. This is completely insane. My daughter drew a gun on a piece of paper at school.”

Sansone, a Kitchener resident, had arrived at Forest Hill public school to pick up his children when he was called to the principal’s office. Three police officers informed him he was being charged with possession of a firearm. Then he was escorted out of the school, handcuffed and locked in the back of a police car.

According to Sansone, he didn’t learn what had caused the investigation until hours after his arrest. Other officers arrived at his home, where they instructed his wife to come to the police station and took his other three children to Family and Children’s Services to be questioned.

“Nobody was given any explanation,” Sansone’s wife, Stephanie Squires, told the paper. “I didn’t know why he was being arrested. He had absolutely no idea what this was even about. I just kept telling them. ‘You’re making a mistake.’”

Sansone was forced to undergo a full strip search.

The school principal, police and child welfare officials said there would need to be an investigation to determine whether he had a gun in his home that children could find.

Alison Scott, executive director of Family and Children’s Services, told the Record, “From a public safety point of view, any child drawing a picture of guns and saying there’s guns in a home would warrant some further conversation with the parents and child.”

Waterloo Regional Police Inspector Kevin Thaler said Forest Hill public school had complained that “a firearm was in a residence and children had access to it. We had every concern, based on this information, that children were in danger.”

He told the paper the school officials’ concern wasn’t based merely on the girl’s picture. Neaveh, Sansone’s daughter, also purportedly made remarks about the drawing that troubled officials.

When a teacher asked Neaveh who the man in the picture was, she purportedly said, “That’s my daddy’s. He uses it to shoot bad guys and monsters.”

Sansone said several hours after his arrest a detective apologized and informed him that he would be released without charges.

“To be honest with you, I broke down,” Sansone told the Record. “My character got put down so much. I was actually really hurt, like it could happen that easy. How do you recognize a criminal from a father?”

After his release, authorities asked Sansone to sign a document allowing a search of his house. He said he signed it, even though he had the option to decline.

“I just think they blew it out of proportion,” his wife said. “It was for absolutely nothing. They searched our house upside down and found nothing. They had the assumption he owned a firearm.”

She added, “The way everything happened was completely unnecessary, especially since we know the school very well. I don’t understand how they came to that conclusion from a four-year-old’s drawing.”

Alison Scott, executive director of Family and Children’s Services, said the agency was required to investigate after the school reported the incident.

“Our community would have an expectation if comments are made about a gun in a house, we’d be obligated to investigate that to ensure everything is safe,” she said. “In the end, it may not be substantiated. There may be a reasonable explanation for why the child drew that gun. But we have to go on what gets presented to us.”

According to the report, she acknowledged, “I’m sure this was a very stressful thing for the family.”

As for the strip search, Thaler said the procedure was required “for officer safety, because it’s a firearms-related incident.”

He noted, “At the point in the investigation when it was determined it was not a real firearm, the individual was released unconditionally.”

Saturday, February 25, 2012

The ruling is highly unusual and "troubling because it's a court telling someone to say something to - in some regards - his chosen group of friends"

Talk about big brother control freaks, how the hell a civil court can dictate human rights is beyond me? I thought the feminist hate filled family court was limited in its bias jurisdiction, however this proves beyond all reasonable doubt that our court system is all about control. Forget justice as the sick system has not allowed for fairness. Will Facebook be the new court system? The judge a mouse? Well that will make it easier for women to create false allegations against men. Internet apology or jail man? What a stuffed world.

US man who was threatened with jail time for posting comments about his estranged wife on his personal Facebook page unless he posted daily apologies for a month says the court ruling violates his freedom of speech.

Mark Byron of Cincinnati is making the apology to avoid 60 days in jail, but he plans to appeal the domestic relations court ruling. Byron and free speech and media experts say it should concern other users of the social networking site.
With hundreds of millions of people using Facebook for communication, Byron said on Friday that "if they can do this to me, they can do it to others".
The idea "that anybody could tell you what to say to your friends on Facebook should be scary to people", said Cincinnati lawyer Jill Meyer, who specialises in free speech and media issues

The ruling is highly unusual and "troubling because it's a court telling someone to say something to - in some regards - his chosen group of friends", said Meyer. She noted that the comments were not directed to Byron's wife, Elizabeth Byron, who was blocked from accessing the page.
According to the ruling, Byron posted comments on his page in November, saying in part: "If you are an evil, vindictive woman who wants to ruin your husband's life and take your son's father away from him completely - all you need to do is say you're scared of your husband or domestic partner and they'll take him away."
The Byrons are involved in ongoing divorce and child custody proceedings. Byron has said his wife and the court have prevented him from seeing his 17-month-old son many times. The court maintains he is allowed to see him on a twice-weekly basis.
Domestic Relations Magistrate Paul Meyers last month found Byron in contempt of a protective order over his Facebook comments. Meyers said that Byron could avoid a 60-day jail sentence and a $500 fine by posting the apology - written by Meyers - to his wife and all of his Facebook friends and paying her lawyer's fees.

The June court order prohibited Byron from causing his wife physical or mental abuse, harassment or annoyance. She asked in December that he be found in contempt after learning of the Facebook comments.
Byron's comments expressed frustration, but they were not threats and he didn't make them to his wife, said Cincinnati lawyer Jack Greiner, who also specialises in free speech and media issues.
Greiner said he doesn't think the First Amendment "allows a court to find that someone has harassed or caused a person to suffer mental abuse merely by expressing one's opinion about a court proceeding in a non-threatening way".

Greiner said that a court compelling speech through a court-written apology raises as many free speech concerns as actions prohibiting free speech.
The statement that Byron says he has been posting since February 13 has him apologising to his wife for "casting her in an unfavourable light" and to his Facebook friends for "attempting to mislead them". Byron said he is being forced to make statements that are false.
The magistrate's assistant said on Friday that Meyers cannot comment on pending court cases. Elizabeth Byron's lawyer did not immediately return calls.
The ruling found that several of Mark Byron's comments were "clearly intended to be mentally abusive, harassing and annoying" to his wife and "generate a negative and venomous response to her from his Facebook friends".
Responses by Facebook friends to his posting caused Elizabeth Byron to be "afraid and concerned", according to court documents.

Byron and his lawyer, Becky Ford, say he made his comments out of frustration and never expected his wife to see them since she couldn't access his account.
"Once he made the comments, some of his Facebook friends started making inflammatory comments which he had no control over," Ford said.
His comments were "nothing other than free speech communication where he was venting truthful information", Ford said.

Bryon is scheduled to appear in court on March 19 and show proof that he posted the apology or go to jail.

Friday, February 24, 2012

She and two dozen North Korean refugees in China are in a terrifying limbo -- the Chinese government wants to deport them back to North Korea, where the new "Supreme Leader" Kim Jong-Un is cracking down by shooting defectors on sight and vowing to kill "three generations" of their families.

Moses escaped the nightmare of surveillance, intimidation, human rights abuses and famine in North Korea --he's a refugee now living in Seoul, South Korea. But a young woman he’s known since they were kids in North Korea is in the group currently being detained in China.

"We have cried our eyes out," Moses and his friends say, certain the young woman will be executed if she's returned to North Korea. Moses's only hope is that international pressure can save her -- he started a petition on Change.org calling on world leaders including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and the EU's Catherine Ashton to do everything they can to stop China from deporting his friend and others back to North Korea.

Click here to sign Moses's petition telling world leaders to stop China from sending two dozen refugees back to North Korea, where they face imprisonment and execution.

North Korea's young leader, Kim Jong-Un, is ruthlessly cracking down to assert his new authority since his father, Kim Jong-Il, died. In December, Kim Jong-Un told border guards to shoot defectors on sight rather than sending them to reeducation camps and decreed defectors' families would also be killed.

But one deadline for the deportation of these refugees has already passed, signaling that China knows it will have blood on its hands if it follows through. China may be bending to international pressure, but needs to hear more from other global leaders to release the refugees to South Korea.

Already, more than 30,000 people have signed Moses's petition. In November, 35,000 people signed a petition on Change.org asking Secretary Clinton to call for the release of political prisoners in Burma -- and she did. She also spoke out for women’s right to drive in Saudi Arabia after receiving a Change.org petition. If every person who cares about human rights signs Moses's petition, world leaders like Secretary Clinton will listen again.

Wednesday, February 22, 2012

Joanna Moss: How A Financial Crisis Might Turn Into Much Needed Reforms

The financial blow-out in the Family Court could be a blessing in disguise if the crisis is put to good use in terms of understanding the wider system and bringing in much needed reform. The Family Court is the court that most New Zealanders have contact with either directly or indirectly. It plays an important role in defining what courts are like and how they operate and also in upholding the rule of law. For these two reasons alone we need it to work well let alone considerations of the children and the family as the building block of society.

But let’s take a step back and look into why this crisis happened before we can look at the much needed reforms. Previous Minister of Justice Simon Power ordered the review when it became obvious that the costs had gone up 63% over the period 2004/2010 and the number of cases had remained roughly static. The figures showed clearly that cases were taking longer to resolve and that the Care of Children Act was the chief culprit.

The Family Court ought never to be viewed in isolation as it lies at the intersection of other systems. That is why this administrative review is a wasted opportunity if it does not get to the heart of the matter. The Family Court is unlike other courts, if it is indeed a court in reality? Some suggest it is really a social agency attempting to solve social not legal problems. Others see it as merely legalising and processing family-related problems having lost its dispute resolution mandate. In future a clarification of the role of the court will be required. But it’s not just administrative processes that ought to be the focus, although improving the processes will certainly help. The Family Court does not exist in a vacuum. How can you challenge administrative processes when the bigger picture is set up to game and not settle, there is limited accountability and there is a lot at stake for those involved as shown below.
Primarily the Family Court links the real economy and the dependent economy with public and private transfer payments sitting behind it namely the Welfare System, the Child Support System, Legal Aid and specialty provider systems plus care and protection and other agencies. So that merely examining the Family Court administrative processes is not enough. There are usually few effective conditions placed upon those receiving the transfer payments, so little incentive to be accountable and act in the best interests of children. Currently the system provides perverse incentives on court service providers to increase the number of cases, drag out cases, to make them more complicated and to prevent settlement.
Essentially this funder system can also distort the outcomes in the Family Court as people position themselves to receive state and private handouts to their advantage. Many of these benefits are tied to the children – so whoever holds the baby gets the purse. So what might happen if these links were taken away in the Care of Children Act and say relationship property proceedings for example?

When most ordinary couples with children separate they privately negotiate a settlement and work out care arrangements to suit themselves making alterations as situations change using negotiation and mediation at their own cost. This is often shared parenting at work. They are forced into a working relationship primarily because they realise they cannot afford or do not want to go to Court. They are also mindful of the huge potential cost and emotional minefield they could encounter. Legal and court costs plus the emotional barrier act as effective mechanisms for encouraging both settlement and a working relationship. They know the only assistance they can receive from the Court is some counselling, typically six sessions. The risks posed are great.

Our goal should be to encourage parties to settle disputes themselves and not seek a role for the state. This is why WINZ benefits or child support and thus free or subsidized legal aid accruing to one party and not the other can distort this process not just to settle a dispute, but also to have an ongoing working relationship simply because the incentives to stay out of court and to do right are just not there. Any behaviour is acceptable and the state continues to pay regardless. For the other side the injustice keeps mounting especially if they are forced to bear court costs and potentially unlimited legal costs on top of child support payments. Often it seems that what you receive for free you do not value. Note that transfer payments for child support and assistance can be made privately or they can use the state’s IRD Child Support systems, so that there are options with enforcement regimes in place. In shared parenting arrangements there might be no transfer payments required making it even simpler.
What would happen if when couples separate the law said that only victims of provable domestic violence would be eligible for state benefits as was the initial rationale for the DPB? Then the Court would be freed up to use its time to act as a real court, to push parties towards self-created solutions and to enforce orders provided the judges were willing to do so. Case law suggests this is sometimes a problem.

One key issue in the review must be determined; if the state plays any role in private disputes of this nature, does it really have to be in an expensive court forum and how far should the state go in providing ancillary services? Do current court processes only delay settlement and thereby add to the cost? The review document suggests a family tribunal akin to the Disputes Tribunal is a preferred solution.

Now examining domestic violence we know that we have a big problem in this area in NZ. But who is asking the question about whether the Domestic Violence Act is actually working and whether handling domestic violence through a very expensive court process is the best way to deal with it? What other options might there be? Imagine if you asked a victim of domestic violence “would you prefer to have some money to help you leave and set up home elsewhere or do you want to spend the equivalent sums on Family Court domestic violence processes”? It’s a no-brainer. Keep in mind that the criminal courts deal with domestic violence as well as the Family Court and the Family Violence Court.

But what of the people who provide specialist services to the Family Court – their costs have also blown out. These are the people that Justice Minister Judith Collins refers to as the “hangers on” such as psychologists, counsellors and counsel for child. What value for money or more importantly value for the family do these people actually provide and how much real training and expertise have these providers got? Given the confusion over the Counsel for Child objectives is it time to dump these services or re-evaluate them? Should all this money be spent on psych reports evaluating children and not in helping them with their problems and adjusting to the new realities. Ongoing disputes create further psychological damage, so the state should focus on stemming the disputes and not letting them drift. Has charging the state by the hour only provided an incentive to do more work in cases in a “make work” scheme?
Maybe we need to stand back and say we are trying to help families and not just process people through legal processes. Have we got lost in the process? When it began 30 years ago the Family Court was never meant to be a den of legal processes. Quite the opposite it was designed to be a place where such things were singularly absent.

There is no question that public perspectives of legal aid as being free and available and certainly not a loan to be repaid have hindered efficient and effective court processes and encouraged ongoing litigation. Many of our public services are deemed “free” and yet they are not free at all. The government’s role in the issues facing the Family Court needs to be re-examined. Most people recognize that access to our courts in general is only for the really rich and very poor. Should the same premise apply to the Family Court? Is that really a satisfactory solution for a society wishing to uphold the rule of law? The Family Court review must look beyond merely examining the administrative processes and ask who are they really serving and how effective are they being in totality?

Maybe the Family Court is merely mirroring wider problems in society and more fundamental questions need to be asked in a wider context.
Joanna Moss is a social policy analyst with particular interest in the Family Court. Through her work she has acted as a McKenzie Friend and supported mothers, fathers, grandparents and a foster mother going through Family Court proceedings. She has been able to combine hands-on exposure to court issues as well as appearing before Select Committees on Family Court matters over a ten-year period.

Tuesday, February 21, 2012

Before tumbling any further with this vitriol, let’s clarify a few things about feminism.

Feminism, in the most traditional sense of the term, is a movement that found its roots in the idea of suffrage, or the right for women to vote freely and participate in debates around civil matters.
Critical caving-points of the establishment and the subsequent improvement (or lack thereof) of feminist theory announced different ‘waves’ in a push for equality.

The first wave dealt with the right for women to vote in democratic society, of which New Zealand is a proud example, being the first to establish a precedent under Kate Sheppard. The second - and arguably most important – wave was established during the latter half of the previous century, fighting tooth-and-nail for women’s reproductive, sexual, workplace, marriage, and familial rights.

True egalitarian feminism is one of the greatest movements in the history of the human race, utilising the great notions of solidarity, protest, and the petitioning of grievances to advance significant social change, devoid of internal rifts attributed to religious or ethical misgivings.

Leonie Morris (spokeswoman for Feminist Action NZ), on the other hand, is setting us back thirty years.

A recent drive has been launched by Feminist Action, by way of petition and online campaign (nothing of which appears in any Google search, so go figure), to have Saatchi & Saatchi’s ad for Tui beer removed from television screens.

You know the ones, where the dipstick, pea-brained men driven by their love of Tui infiltrate the landmark brewery in the Wairarapa to steal beer protected by a small army of beautiful, skin-baring, female security guards and brewers.

Aside from the blatant stupidity of such a campaign that has so far failed to mention any engagement in the Advertising Standards Authority’s complaints process, Morris and her fellow militant ‘feminists’ are harking back to the radicalized, man-hating, bra-burners of the 80s.

Part 5 of the ASA’s ‘Code For People In Advertising’ reads as follows: “Advertisements should not employ sexual appeal in a manner which is exploitative and degrading of any individual or group of people in society to promote the sale of products or services. In particular people should not be portrayed in a manner which uses sexual appeal simply to draw attention to an unrelated product. Children must not be portrayed in a manner which treats them as objects of sexual appeal.”

Ms Morris says despite the ads being around for years, she now wants communities to start talking again about how harmful these kinds of images and messages are.

Harmful to who?

Portraying women in skimpy outfits with sweat dripping from their brow is largely inappropriate for children and young adults to be viewing – this cannot be disputed – but since when did the characterization of empowered women working in a traditionally male-dominated workplace become sexist, regardless of what they’re wearing?

The sexualisation of society, with special attention being drawn to vanity and superficiality is a deeply worrying topic, especially where children and young people are concerned, be it a billboard for Victoria’s Secret or Jockey, and so on.
An open and public discourse should be engaged so we can tackle ideas around sexuality and identity in a thoroughly democratic way.

But playing the big F card is simply an attention-grabber for Leonie Morris and her fellow radicals.
It is exactly this electioneering attitude, and insistence that the majority adopt a minority view, that earned the esteemed name of egalitarian feminism such a hated reputation in the 1980s, and which is shamefully present in our dialogue today.

Feminist Action are not worthy of their name, and their aims – reasonable enough under a different light – are deceitful and damaging to the fight for more equality for all in modern society.

Thursday, February 16, 2012

This article is well worth a read. It makes my blood boil when people say that right wing are nut jobs.How the hell would they know, as there are no real right wing political parties in New Zealand. Not yet anyway. Thinking of a job change so I can destroy these insipid socialist creeps that pollute our political arena. I detest politicians simply because they're greedy - egomaniac - wimpish - parasitic - freaks!

Left-Right Paradigm Is A HoaxLadies and gentlemen, face it: the left-right paradigm is a hoax! It creates false conflicts and masks true problems. It caters to the increase of socialism on the one hand and fascism and corporatism on the other hand. It saps our strengths and augments our weaknesses. It blinds our eyes to the warning clouds above us and deafens our ears to the sounds of the sirens around us. It turns friends into adversaries and adversaries into friends.......http://www.newswithviews.com/baldwin/baldwin688.htm
by Pastor Chuck Baldwin

Saturday, February 11, 2012

Why the moronic governments agencies haven't thought of this early is beyond belief? Has anybody claiming to act in the child's best interests any common sense? Sort your shit out. The system is sick and a total let down for kiwi kids.

Children's Commissioner Russell Wills is calling on the Government to
introduce laws to allow services caring for vulnerable children to share
information without requiring consent from parents or guardians.
While presenting his submission to the Green Paper on Vulnerable Children to
a crowd in Havelock North yesterday, Dr Wills said New Zealand needed an
equivalent to legislation introduced in New South Wales in 2009.
"Information sharing means that if Pam [a service worker] is worried about a
child and I'm worried about a child, currently without parent consent I can't
ring Pam and say, `Pam I'm looking after this child, tell me about her', and she
can't ring me."
Child, Youth and Family could share information with others, which was
beneficial but did not go far enough, said Dr Wills, a Hawke's Bay
paediatrician.
Under Chapter 16A of the New South Wales Children and Young Persons (Care and
Protection) Act, government agencies and authorised NGOs are required to share
information with or without parents' consent.
"That's about information sharing, and we need to be doing that in New
Zealand," Dr Wills said. The chapter came into force in October 2009 after a
special commission of inquiry found sharing the information was essential to
provide effective services.
Dr Wills said he had faith in the Whanau Ora programme, which "is not a
complex idea".
"We need to pool our resources, we need to be talking together, and it needs
to be culturally appropriate." THE GREEN PAPER
Dr Russell Wills says the Green Paper on Vulnerable Children is "the best
opportunity in our lifetime to change policy for children".
The paper is a discussion document that puts forward ideas on how New Zealand
can better protect its children – at a government level and in society.
Social Development Minister Paula Bennett has been touring the country
holding public meetings on the paper. More than 2000 submissions have been
received so far.
People can make submissions on the Green Paper in a number of ways, including
attending meetings, visiting the Green Paper campervan, posting on Facebook, by
email or by post. The paper's submission period ends on February 28.

If there’s one message I was hoping to get across by creating this article, it’s that fathers + rights + divorce does NOT equal a dead end! But that’s exactly what one colleague tried to tell me last week. The topic of conversation we were discussing over lunch was “when not to fight a restraining order” in the middle of a divorce, and his argument was that “any ex-wife sly enough to file false abuse allegations against the parent of her kids is bound to win a custody case anyway”.
So fathers should just hire a lawyer to defend them on a minimal basis, and get the ordeal over and done with as quickly as possible, right..?
Where my colleague went wrong, though, is that his opinion is all based in theory. I’ve been there for real, and I know that my experience of fighting a restraining order during a divorce case in order to win a custody battle should not be written off.
It’s tough work; if you choose to employ a lawyer, you’ll need both the finance and the know-how to employ a good one. It took me three years, and two lawyers, and several thousand in court fees. But the honest answer to the question of “when not to fight a restraining order” is – absolutely never. You should always put up a fight.
Just remember these three important facts about the situation and you’re already onto a winning case, because knowledge is power:Fact #1 – You need to do it for yourself, too. You’re not just fighting a restraining order for your kids – the National Crime Information Center registry (NCIC) entry against your name often causes massive problems at customs. It will also show up on any potential employer’s criminal record background check – it’s pretty normal to get job interview offers declined because the restraining order marker against your name has been flagged up.

You only get to see your kids grow up once, so it’s understandable that you focus on them as a priority, but you need to get the restraining order rescinded for your own sake too.

Fact #2 – The burden of proof is against you in court. When your ex files a phony restraining order, she relies on you failing to gather evidence or argue your case – if you don’t fight back using phone records, diaries, witnesses, store receipts, email records… whatever it takes… you let her win by default. And since judges operate on a “err on the side of caution” basis, if he or she doesn’t hear your side of the story there is zero chance they’re going to dismiss the case.
Basically, the burden of proof in restraining order cases is so low as to be non-existent, and you won’t find any of the “beyond reasonable doubt” stuff required by criminal courts.Fact #3 – But you can win! Literally thousands of American dads are winning their custody cases every week, with any phony abuse allegations thrown out of court – you can be one of them, and you don’t need a law degree or a lawyer being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars to do it.

Wednesday, February 8, 2012

A female Canadian libertarian wrote a lot of letters to the government, complaining about the treatment of captive insurgents (terrorists) being held in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities.

Thank you for your recent letter expressing your profound concern of treatment of the Taliban and Al Qaeda terrorists captured by Canadian Forces - who were subsequently transferred to the Afghanistan Government and are currently being held by Afghan officials in Afghanistan National Correctional System facilities.

You will be pleased to learn, thanks to the concerns of citizens like yourself; we are creating a new Department here at the Department of National Defence, to be called 'Liberals Accept Responsibility for Killers' program, or L.A..R.K. For short.

In accordance with the guidelines of this new program, we have decided to divert one terrorist and place him in your personal care.

Your personal detainee has been selected and is scheduled for transportation under heavily armed guard to your residence in Toronto next Monday.

Ali Mohammed Ahmed bin Mahmud (you can just call him Ahmed) is to be cared for pursuant to the standards you personally demanded in your letter of complaint.

It will likely be necessary for you to hire some assistant caretakers. We will conduct weekly inspections to ensure that your standards of care for Ahmed are commensurate with those you so strongly recommend in your letter.

Although Ahmed is a sociopath and extremely violent, we hope that your sensitivity to what you described as his "attitudinal problem " will help him overcome these character flaws.

Perhaps you are correct in describing these problems as mere cultural differences.

We understand that you plan to offer counselling, home schooling and a daily copy of The Toronto Star.

Your adopted terrorist is extremely proficient in hand-to-hand combat and can extinguish human life with such simple items as a pencil or nail clippers.

We advise that you do not ask him to demonstrate these skills at your next yoga group.

He is also expert at making a wide variety of explosive devices from common household products, so you may wish to keep those items locked up, unless (in your opinion) this might offend him.

Ahmed will not wish to interact with you or your daughters (except sexually) since he views females as a subhuman form of property.

This is a particularly sensitive subject for him and he has been known to show violent tendencies around women who fail to comply with the new dress code that he will recommend as more appropriate attire.

I'm sure you will come to enjoy the anonymity offered by the burka over time. Just remember that it is all part of 'respecting his culture and religious beliefs' as described in your letter.

Thanks again for your concern. We truly appreciate it when folks like you keep us informed of the proper way to do our job and care for our fellow man.

The Timaru District Council is calling
for information after the head of a statue of Robbie Burns was removed overnight
on Saturday night.

Timaru District Council is offering a $1000 reward in a bid to catch the
culprit who vandalised a statue of Scottish bard Robbie Burns at the weekend.
Mayor Janie Annear said the reward would match the estimated value of damage
to the statue, if it can be repaired, after its head was removed. She wants the
head returned and anyone with information on the "mindless act of vandalism" to
come forward.
"It is highly likely that several people know who is involved and someone
with a social conscience will pass on the information."
The damage to the statue was the second case of vandalism involving a public
artwork in the district this year. A bronze statue, which was part of the
Heartland Sculpture Challenge held in 2010, was taken from its plinth in
Pleasant Point last month. It has since been found.

Monday, February 6, 2012

Just look at the enormous cost to kiwi society fatherlessness has created.

Radical feminists have destroyed the equal justice in New Zealand decades ago.These kiwi femi-garchs are nothing more than a small,out dated , non-representative, self interest group of shrill merchants. Many of these nasty bitches lurk in the corridors of power , maggots deposited by the Klarkula blowfly. These deluded creeps are fighting the masses in order to hold on to their ill -gotten power. They have a huge need to fill the void in their cold blooded bodies. Unfortunately for children and fathers it's all about control, manipulation, and deceitfulness. Their insipid ideologies have saturated government agencies that claim to act in the child's best interests. The Family Court and CYFS have femi-garch mandates which is tragic for children and fatal for dads. Why these agencies willfully practice unlawful male gender discrimination is a sad indictment for such a country. No wonder unbalanced children are appearing in our docks in ever increasingly numbers. No wonder child abuse by Maori is running rampant when the fem-garchs label all men as Jake the Muss tough boy wife beater nigger savage.

Time to stand up and accept it's time to rid ourselves of these dangerous and evil kiwi femi-garchs.

Sunday, February 5, 2012

Look to the sky here in New Zealand as Batman is going to conquer the beehive and this time he will have many helpers.F4J is alive and well here in kiwiland.We demand equal rights and we will achieve our objective no matter what the cost. Are you loud and clear on that you filthy scum suckers that staff the corrupt femily court. Can the gender bias 'system'explain why I must continue to pay child support for my two daughters when they live under my roof. The IRD are nothing more than extortion gangsters and the femily court a den of lies.

Parental 'poison' of kids on rise

MORE warring parents in Family Court disputes are claiming former partners
have poisoned their children against them, a new study shows.

It reveals fathers are almost as likely as mothers to be guilty of
deliberately alienating the children from the other parent.
Nicholas Bala, professor of law at Queens University in Canada and an expert
in parental alienation, will present his findings of Australian data at a
seminar in Melbourne this month at the Australian Institute of Family
Studies.

He said there were genuine cases of parental alienation - where children were
brainwashed and manipulated into an unfounded fear and rejection of the other
parent.

''But there are other cases where the child has legitimate reasons to be
afraid of a parent,'' he said, ''and it's important for the court to unpack the
real reasons.''

The study found that where a parent was found to have alienated the child
from the other parent, judges ordered the child live with the ''rejected''
parent in half the cases.

''It's controversial and dramatic to order a change of residence but in more
severe cases children will not respond to counselling if they continue to live
with the alienating parent,'' Professor Bala said.
It was preferable for judges in appropriate cases to cajole, pressure and
persuade parents to change their behaviour, and to recognise both were often at
fault.

The data, based on a search in cases before the Family Court of Australia and
the Family Court of Western Australia found about 230 cases since 1997.

Children are for the first time to be given the legal right to have a proper relationship with both their parents after a divorce, The Telegraph can disclose Ministers intend to rewrite the law in an attempt to ensure that fathers get improved access to their offspring after a marriage breaks down.

Currently,family courts decide to leave children with their mothers in the vast majority of divorce cases.

Campaigners have long complained that without a legal right to see their children, fathers can be excluded, particularly when a split has been acrimonious. By creating the new right for children, ministers hope that judges ruling on custody disputes will ensure more equal access for both parents.

A ministerial working group will be announced on Monday to decide how the Children’s Act 1989 needs to be amended.

According to the Office for National Statistics, one in three children, equivalent to 3.8 million, lives without their father. Ministers are particularly concerned about boys growing up without a strong male influence.

Eighty per cent of single parents in Britain are fathers.

The announcement will give hope to campaign groups that have argued for years that fathers deserve a legal right to more equal access after a divorce.

It will also overturn the main finding of an independent official review into family justice by David Norgrove, which reported in November. He concluded that it would be too onerous for judges to ensure greater equality of access.

Ministers are bracing themselves for a backlash from single mothers’ groups that are concerned about the possibility of aggressive fathers intervening in the lives of their children.

The working group, comprising education ministers Tim Loughton and Sarah Teather,and justice minister Jonathan Djanogly, has been asked to come up with proposals on how the law should be changed within two months.

Campaign group Fathers4Justice claims that every day 200 children lose contact with their fathers because of decisions taken in family courts. Under the plans the1989 Act could be amended to include a “presumption of shared parenting”, this newspaper has learnt.

“But if children are having decent, loving parents pushed out of their lives, we owe it to them to change the system that lets this happen.”

One official said the Government wanted to remove any “inbuilt legal bias against the father or the mother” in the law. The official said: “This is about the children. Both parents should have a full and continuing role in a child’s life after they separate.

“Where there are no significant welfare issues, we would want to see this principle reinforced through law. We will make a legislative statement emphasising the importance of children having an ongoing relationship with both their parents at separation, when it is safe and in the child’s best interests.

Mr Norgrove originally proposed a right to equal access in law for both parents last March and then dropped it from his final 220-page report in November.

He said it would put too much pressure on judges to set out the exact length of time that each divorced parent should spend with their children.

Mr Norgrove, who chairs the Low Pay Commission, cited evidence from Australia which suggested children suffered more when courts imposed time limits on access to parents.

Mr Loughton, who had campaigned to change the law when in opposition, suggested Mr Norgrove had read too much into the Australian example.

He added: “The concept of 'shared parenting’ after a break-up often gets confused with the idea of equal time that a child spends with each parent.

“Quite clearly, ordinary living and working arrangements make an equal division impossible, and undesirable, in all but a small minority of cases.

“In all of this, the most important thing remains the principle that the child’s welfare is the paramount consideration and this must not be diluted.”

Ministers are also set to announce a £10million fund to encourage more parents to use mediation. Mr Loughton added: “The courts are rarely the best place for resolving private disputes about the care of children.”

Wednesday, February 1, 2012

The American DreamWednesday, February 1, 2012
With each passing year, the difference between America’s prisons and America’s public schools becomes smaller and smaller. As you read the rest of this article, you will be absolutely amazed at some of the crazy things that school children in America are being arrested for. When I was growing up, I don’t remember a single police officer ever coming to my school. Discipline was always handled by the teachers and by the principals.

But today, there are schools all over the country that have police officers permanently stationed in the halls. Many other schools will call out police officers at the drop of a hat. In the classrooms of America today, if you burp in class, if you spray yourself with perfume or if you doodle on your desk, there is a chance that you will be arrested by the police and hauled out of your school in handcuffs. Unfortunately, we live in a country where paranoia has become standard operating procedure. The American people have become convinced that the only way that we can all be “safe” is for this country to be run like a militarized totalitarian police state. So our public schools are run like prisons and our public school students are treated like prisoners. The United States has the highest incarceration rate in the world by far, and our schools are preparing the next generation to either “do time” in the prison system or to live as good little slaves in the Big Brother prison grid that is being constructed all around us. But what our schools are not doing is giving these children the critical thinking skills that they need to live as free citizens in a nation that used to be “the land of the free and the home of the brave”.
Of course very few people would deny that the character of American schoolchildren has changed dramatically over the decades. Back in the 1950s, some of the biggest school discipline problems were gum chewing and hair pulling. Today, kids bring knives, guns and drugs with them to school. Gang activity is rampant in many of our schools and in some schools kids are evenhaving sex in the school bathrooms.
So there is definitely a discipline problem in our schools.
But what is going on in many areas of the country is absolutely ridiculous. For example, in 2010 alone police down in Texas issued an astounding 300,000tickets to school children.
Yes, if a kid pulls a knife on someone the police should get involved, but teachers and administrators should be able to use some common sense and handle the vast majority of discipline problems that happen themselves.
What you are about to read is absolutely going to amaze you. The following are 19 really crazy things that school children are being arrested for in America….#1 At one public school down in Texas, a 12-year-old girl named Sarah Bustamantes was recently arrested for spraying herself with perfume.#2 A 13-year-old student at a school in Albuquerque, New Mexico was recently arrested by police for burping in class.#3 Another student down in Albuquerque was forced to strip down to his underwear while five adults watched because he had $200 in his pocket. The student was never formally charged with doing anything wrong.#4 A security guard at one school in California broke the arm of a 16-year-old girl because she left some crumbs on the floor after cleaning up some cake that she had spilled.#5 One teenage couple down in Houston poured milk on each other during a squabble while they were breaking up. Instead of being sent to see the principal,they were arrested and sent to court.#6 In early 2010, a 12-year-old girl at a school in Forest Hills, New York was arrested by police and marched out of her school in handcuffs just because she doodled on her desk. “I love my friends Abby and Faith” was what she reportedly scribbled on her desk.#7 A 6-year-old girl down in Florida was handcuffed and sent to a mental facility after throwing temper tantrums at her elementary school.#8 One student down in Texas was reportedly arrested by police for throwing paper airplanes in class.#9 A 17-year-old honor student in North Carolina named Ashley Smithwick accidentally took her father’s lunch with her to school. It contained a small paring knife which he would use to slice up apples. So what happened to this standout student when the school discovered this? The school suspended her for the rest of the year and the police charged her with a misdemeanor.#10 In Allentown, Pennsylvania a 14-year-old girl was tasered in the groin area by a school security officer even though she had put up her hands in the air to surrender.#11 Down in Florida, an 11-year-old student was arrested, thrown in jail and charged with a third-degree felony for bringing a plastic butter knife to school.#12 Back in 2009, an 8-year-old boy in Massachusetts was sent home from school and was forced to undergo a psychological evaluation because he drew a picture of Jesus on the cross.#13 A police officer in San Mateo, California blasted a 7-year-old special education student in the face with pepper spray because he would not quit climbing on the furniture.#14 In America today, even 5-year-old children are treated brutally by police. The following is from a recent article that described what happened to one very young student in Stockton, California a while back….

Earlier this year, a Stockton student was handcuffed with zip ties on his hands and feet, forced to go to the hospital for a psychiatric evaluation and was charged with battery on a police officer. That student was 5 years old.

#15 At one school in Connecticut, a 17-year-old boy was thrown to the floor andtasered five times because he was yelling at a cafeteria worker.#16 A teenager in suburban Dallas was forced to take on a part-time jobafter being ticketed for using foul language in one high school classroom. The original ticket was for $340, but additional fees have raised the total bill to $637.#17 A few months ago, police were called out when a little girl kissed a little boy during a physical education class at an elementary school down in Florida.#18 A 6-year-old boy was recently charged with sexual battery for some “inappropriate touching” during a game of tag at one elementary school in the San Francisco area.#19 In Massachusetts, police were recently sent out to collect an overdue library book from a 5-year-old girl.
Unfortunately, what is going on in our schools is a reflection of the broader society as a whole. Our schools are being turned into prisons because our entire society is being turned into a giant prison.
Our nation is rapidly heading down the toilet, and the children of this nation do not have a bright future to look forward to.
If the police really want to find some criminals, they should start investigating some of the sickos that are in charge of some of these classrooms.
It seems like almost every day now there is a news story about some public school teacher that is involved in some kind of really perverted stuff.
For example, just check out what police down in Los Angeles recently found that one teacher was hiding….

A former Los Angeles elementary school teacher has been arrested for felony molestation of nearly two dozen students, accused of gagging children and putting live cockroaches on some of their faces. Deputies say the crimes were committed on campus.

Sickos who do that kind of stuff to kids should be punished very severely.
America’s schools are changing, and not for the better.
Personally, I went to public schools all my life, but I would not recommend that anyone send their kids to public schools today. There is just way too much crazy stuff that goes on.
And our kids are learning less than ever in these public schools. As I have written about previously, many of them are coming out of the system as dumb as a rock. Instead of teaching our kids how to think critically and examine all sides of an issue, these schools are indoctrinating our kids and pushing particular social and political agendas on them.
There are a few public schools out there that are still good, but the vast majority of them are horrible. They are not producing the leaders of tomorrow and they are not preparing the next generation with the tools that they need to survive in a complex world.
So is there much hope that our schools can be turned around? Feel free to leave a comment with your opinion below….